Advertisement

Assessment in Early Childhood Special Education

  • Scott R. McConnellEmail author
  • Naomi L. Rahn
Chapter

Abstract

Assessment has long been acknowledged as an essential feature in the provision of early childhood special education (ECSE) services, both as a major element of eligibility determination and a required element of intervention planning and ongoing evaluation for children and families. In recent years assessment practices available for young children with disabilities and their families have become more sophisticated and broader in application across a wide range of settings. The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of this historical role and to highlight features of the emerging uses of assessment as a central feature of high-quality services for infants, toddlers, and preschool children with disabilities, their families, and those who serve them. In particular, this chapter argues for an expanded view of assessment—one where assessment practices, carefully aligned and intertwined with formal and informal services and supports, increase the efficacy and efficiency of societal efforts to promote young children’s development. Given this approach to assessment, we describe basic features of assessment, including its core purpose and functions and the quality standards for its use, and review four major functions of assessment in early intervention and ECSE: eligibility and identification for specialized intervention, program planning, intervention and fidelity assessment, and progress monitoring.

Keywords

Assessment Evaluation Progress monitoring Norm-referenced Standards Program planning Children with disabilities Early intervention Early childhood special education Early childhood Special education Children with special needs 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Preparation of this manuscript was supported in part by grant R324C080011, the Center for Response to Intervention in Early Childhood, from the Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education, to the University of Kansas, Charles Greenwood and Judith Carta, Principal Investigators. However, the opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are those of the authors alone, and this paper does not imply official endorsement from the Institute of Education Sciences.

Dr. McConnell and his colleagues have developed assessment tools and related resources known as Individual Growth & Development Indicators and Get it, Got it, Go! This intellectual property is subject of technology commercialization and possible licensing agreements through the University of Minnesota. Dr. McConnell may be entitled to royalties for products related to the research described in this paper. The university has reviewed and managed this relationship in accordance with its conflict of interest policies.

References

  1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2002). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  2. Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. Anthony, J. L., Williams, J. M., Durán, L. K., Gillam, S. L., Liang, L., Aghara, R., … Landry, S. H. (2011). Spanish phonological awareness: Dimensionality and sequence of development during the preschool and kindergarten years. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 857.Google Scholar
  4. Bagnato, S. J., McLean, M., Macy, M., & Neisworth, J. T. (2011). Identifying instructional targets for early childhood via authentic assessment: Alignment of professional standards and evidence-based practices. Journal of Early Intervention, 33, 243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bagnato, S. J., Neisworth, J. T., & Pretti-Frontczak, K. (2010). LINKing authentic assessment and early childhood intervention: Best measures for best practices (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.Google Scholar
  6. Bethell, C., Reuland, C., Schor, E., Abrahms, M., & Halfon, N. (2011). Rates of parent-centered developmental screening: Disparities and links to services access. Pediatrics, 128, 146–155.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bradfield, T. A., Vue, K., Rodriguez, M., & McConnell, S. R. (2014). Confident decision-making: Validation of an early childhood response to intervention decision-making framework. Paper presented at the Conference for Research Innovation in Early Intervention, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  8. Bradfield, T. A., Wackerle-Hollman, A., Albano, A., Rodriguez, M., & McConnell, S. R. (2014). Redefining individual growth and development indicators: Oral language. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 39, 233–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bricker, D. (Series Ed.). (2002). Assessment, evaluation, and programming system for infants and children (2nd ed., Vols. 1–4). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.Google Scholar
  10. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bruder, M. B. (2010). Early childhood intervention: A promise to children and families for their future. Exceptional Children, 76, 339–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buzhardt, J., Greenwood, C. R., Walker, D., Anderson, R., Howard, W. J., & Carta, J. J. (2011). Effects of web-based support on early Head Start home visitors’ use of evidence-based intervention decision making and growth in children’s expressive communication. NHSA Dialog, 13, 121–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carta, J. J., Greenwood, C. R., Goldstein, H., McConnell, S. R., Kaminski, R., Bradfield, T. A., … Atwater, J. (2016). Advances in multi-tiered systems of support for prekindergarten children: Lessons learned from 5 years of research and development from the Center for Response to Intervention in Early Childhood. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), The handbook of Response to Intervention: The science and practice of multi-tiered systems of support (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Christ, T. J., & Nelson, P. M. (2014). Developing and evaluating screening systems: Practical and psychometric considerations. In R. J. Kettler, T. A. Glover, C. A. Albers, & K. A. Feeney-Kettler (Eds.), Universal screening in educational settings: Evidence-based decision making for schools. School psychology book series (pp. 79–110). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Connor, C. M., Piasta, S. B., Fishman, B., Glasney, S., Schatschneider, C., Crowe, E., … Morrison, F. J. (2009). Individualizing student instruction precisely: Effects of child × instruction interactions on first graders’ literacy development. Child Development, 80(1), 77–100.Google Scholar
  16. Cook, B. G., & Odom, S. L. (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education. Exceptional Children, 79, 135–144.Google Scholar
  17. Cronbach, L. J. (1990). Essentials of psychological testing (5th ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  18. Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Deno, S. L. (1997). Whither thou goest … perspectives on progress monitoring. In J. W. Lloyd, E. J. Kame’enui, & D. Chard (Eds.), Issues in educating students with disabilities (pp. 77–99). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Deno, S. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 184–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Division for Early Childhood. (2014). DEC recommended practices in early intervention/early childhood special education. Retrieved from http://www.dec-sped.org.
  22. Dunlap, G., Hemmeter, M. L., Kaiser, A. P., & Wolery, M. (2011). Introduction to PL 99-457 anniversary issues. Journal of Early Intervention, 33, 239–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Earls, M. F., & Hay, S. S. (2006). Setting the stage for success: Implementation of developmental and behavioral screening and surveillance in primary care practice—the North Carolina Assuring Better Child Health and Development (ABCD) project. Pediatrics, 118, e183–e188.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  25. Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K. A., Naoom, S. F., & Wallace, F. (2009). Core implementation components. Research on Social Work Practice, 19, 531–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1991). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57, 488–500.Google Scholar
  27. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2012). Smart RTI: A next-generation approach to multilevel prevention. Exceptional Children, 78, 263–279.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Furuno, S., O’Reilly, K. A., Hosaka, C. M., Inatsuka, T. T., Allman, T. L., & Zeisloft, B. (1979). Hawaii early learning profile. Palo Alto, CA: VORT Corporation.Google Scholar
  29. Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. (2000). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (DIBELS). Retrieved from http://dibels.uoregon.edu.
  30. Greenwood, C. R., Buzhardt, J., Walker, D., Howard, W. J., & Anderson, R. (2011). Program-level influences on the measurement of early communication for infants and toddlers in early Head Start. Journal of Early Intervention, 33, 110–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J. J., & McConnell, S. R. (2011). Advances in measurement for universal screening and individual progress monitoring of young children. Journal of Early Intervention, 33, 254–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Greenwood, C. R., & McConnell, S. R. (2011). JEI guidelines for manuscripts describing the development and testing of an assessment instrument or measure. Journal of Early Intervention, 33, 171–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Grisham-Brown, J., & Pretti-Frontczak, K. (2011). Assessing young children in inclusive settings: The blended practices approach. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.Google Scholar
  34. Hawkins, R. P. (1979). The functions of assessment: Implications for selection and development of devices for assessing repertoires in clinical, educational, and other settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 501–516.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Janus, M., Brinkman, S., Duku, E., Hertzman, C., Santos, R., Sayers, M., … Walsh, C. (2007). The early development instrument: A population-based measure for communities. A handbook on development, properties, and use. Hamilton, ON: Offord Centre for Child Studies.Google Scholar
  36. Janus, M., & Offord, D. R. (2007). Development and psychometric properties of the Early Development Instrument (EDI): A measure of children’s school readiness. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 39, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Johnson, J. J., Rahn, N. L., & Bricker, D. (2015). Activity-based intervention: A comprehensive framework for use with young children (4th ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.Google Scholar
  38. Johnson-Martin, N., Jens, K. G., Attermeier, S. M., & Hacker, B. J. (1986). Carolina curriculum for handicapped infants and infants at risk. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.Google Scholar
  39. Kazdin, A. E. (1979). Situational specificity: The double-edged sword of behavioral assessment. Journal of Behavioral Assessment, 1, 57–75.Google Scholar
  40. King, T. M., Tandon, S. D., Macias, M. M., Healy, J. A., Duncan, P. M., Swigonski, N. L., … Lipkin, P. H. (2010). Implementing developmental screening and referrals: Lessons learned from a national project. Pediatrics, 125, 350–360.Google Scholar
  41. MacCorquodale, K., & Meehl, P. E. (1948). On a distinction between hypothetical constructs and intervening variables. Psychological Review, 55, 95–107.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Macy, M. M., Bricker, D. D., & Squires, J. K. (2005). Validity and reliability of a curriculum-based assessment approach to determine eligibility for Part C services. Journal of Early Intervention, 28, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McCarthy, D. (1970). Manual for the McCarthy scales of children’s abilities. New York, NY: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  44. McConnell, S. R. (2000). Assessment in early intervention and early childhood special education: Building on the past to project into our future. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20, 43–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McConnell, S. R. (2001). Distinguishing two approaches to assessment of infants and young toddlers. In S. McConnell (Chair), Recent advances in developmental assessment of infants and young children: Evidence from two approaches. Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
  46. McConnell, S. R., Wackerle-Hollman, A., & Bradfield, T. A. (2014). Early childhood literacy screening. In R. Kettler, T. Glover, C. Albers, & K. A. Feeney-Kettler (Eds.), Universal screening in educational settings: Identification, implications, and interpretation (pp. 141–170). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McConnell, S. R., Wackerle-Hollman, A. K., Roloff, T. A. B., & Rodriguez, M. (2014). Designing a measurement framework for response to intervention in early childhood programs. Journal of Early Intervention, 36(4), 263–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McLean, M., Edelman, L., & Salcedo, P. (2011). User’s guide to the DRDP access for preschool special education (4th ed.). Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education, Special Education Division.Google Scholar
  49. McLean, M., Wolery, M., & Bailey, D. B. (2003). Assessing infants and preschoolers with special needs (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  50. McWilliam, R. A. (2003). RBI report form. Center for Child Development, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN. Retrieved from http://www.siskin.org/www/docs/112.190.
  51. Messick, S. (1988). The once and future issues of validity: Assessing the meaning and consequences of measurement. New York, NY: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  52. Messick, S. (1990). Validity of test interpretation and use. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  53. Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. National Academy for State Health Policy. (2014). ABCD resource center. Retrieved October 3, 2014, from http://www.nashp.org/abcd-welcome.
  55. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/.
  56. Neisworth, J. T., & Bagnato, S. J. (2005). DEC recommended practices: Assessment. In S. Sandall, M. L. Hemmeter, B. J. Smith, & M. E. McLean (Eds.), DEC recommended practices: A comprehensive guide for practice application in early intervention/early childhood special education (pp. 45–69). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.Google Scholar
  57. Newborg, J., Stock, J. R., Wnek, L., Guidubaldi, J., & Svinicki, J. (1988). Battelle developmental inventory. Allen, TX: DLM (Original work published 1984).Google Scholar
  58. O’Neill, R. E., Albin, R. W., Storey, K., Horner, R. H., & Sprague, J. R. (2014). Functional assessment and program development for problem behavior: A practical handbook (3rd ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  59. Pelletier, H., & Abrams, M. (2003). ABCD: Lessons from a four-state consortium—National Academy for State Health Policy. Portland, ME: National Academy for State Health Policy.Google Scholar
  60. Phillips, B. M., Piasta, S. B., Anthony, J. L., Lonigan, C. J., & Francis, D. J. (2012). IRTs of the ABCs: Children’s letter name acquisition. Journal of School Psychology, 50(4), 461–481.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. Pretti-Frontczak, K., & Bricker, D. (2000). Enhancing the quality of IEP goals and objectives. Journal of Early Intervention, 23, 92–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ramey, C. T., & Ramey, S. L. (1998). Early intervention and early experience. American Psychologist, 53, 109–120.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Rodriguez, M. C. (2010). Building a validity framework for second-generation IGDIs. Minneapolis, MN: Technical Reports of the Center for Response to Intervention in Early Childhood. University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  64. Salvia, J., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Bolt, S. (2012). Assessment in special and inclusive education (12th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  65. Shonkoff, J. P., & Meisels, S. J. (1990). Early childhood intervention: The evolution of a concept. In J. P. Shonkoff & S. J. Meisels (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood intervention (pp. 3–31). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Snyder, P. A., Wixson, C. S., Talapatra, D., & Roach, A. T. (2008). Assessment in early childhood: Instruction-focused strategies to support response-to-intervention frameworks. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 34, 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Strain, P. S., McConnell, S. R., Carta, J. J., Fowler, S. A., Neisworth, J. T., & Wolery, M. (1992). Behaviorism in early intervention. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 12, 121–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Terman, L. W., & Merrill, M. A. (1972). Stanford-Binet intelligence scale, form L-M (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  69. Thorndike, R. L., Hagen, E. P., & Sattler, J. M. (1986). Stanford-Binet intelligence scale (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: Riverside Publishing.Google Scholar
  70. Tilly, D. W. (2002). Best practices in school psychology as a problem-solving enterprise. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology-IV (pp. 21–36). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  71. Tilly, W. D., III. (2008). The evolution of school psychology to science-based practice: Problem solving and the three-tiered model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 17–36). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  72. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, & Office of Head Start. (2011). The Head Start child development and early learning framework: Promoting positive outcomes in early childhood programs serving children 3–5 years old. Retrieved from http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/hs/sr/approach/cdelf.
  73. Wackerle-Hollman, A., Brunner, S., Duran, L., McConnell, S., Palma, J., Kohlmeier, T., … Rodriguez, M. (2012). The development of early literacy skills in bilingual and Spanish-speaking preschool-age children: A literature review. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  74. Wackerle-Hollman, A., Schmitt, B., Bradfield, T. A., Rodriguez, M., & McConnell, S. R. (2015). Redefining individual growth and development indicators: Phonological awareness. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(5), 495–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Walker, D., Carta, J. J., Greenwood, C. R., & Buzhardt, J. (2008). The use of individual growth and developmental indicators for progress monitoring and intervention decision-making in early education. Exceptionality, 16, 33–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wechsler, D. (1967). Manual for the Wechsler preschool and primary scale of intelligence. New York, NY: The Psychological Corporation (Original work published 1963).Google Scholar
  77. White, O. R. (1986). Precision teaching-precision learning. Exceptional Children, 52(6), 522–534.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  79. Wolery, M. (2004). Monitoring children’s progress and intervention implementation. In M. McLean, M. Wolery, & D. B. Bailey Jr. (Eds.), Assessing infants and preschoolers with special needs (3rd ed., pp. 545–584). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
  80. Wolery, M. (2005). DEC recommended practices: Child-focused practices. In S. Sandall, M. L. Hemmeter, B. J. Smith, & M. E. McLean (Eds.), DEC recommended practices: A comprehensive guide for practice application in early intervention/early childhood special education (pp. 71–106). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.Google Scholar
  81. Wong, C., Odom, S. L., Hume, K., Cox, A. W., Fetting, A., Kucharczyk, S., & Schultz, T. R. (2014). Evidence-based practices for children, youth, and young adults with autism spectrum disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, Autism Evidence-Based Practice Review Group.Google Scholar
  82. Xu, D., Richards, J., & Gilkerson, J. (2014). Automated analysis of child phonetic production using naturalistic recordings. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 57, 1638–1650.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational PsychologyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.College of Education and Human ServicesWest Virginia UniversityMorgantownUSA

Personalised recommendations